Pages

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Iran - time for Greens to support petroleum (gas) sanctions?

Iran is ruled by an oppressive regime whose power was obtained by rigging an election. The regime is contemptuous of human rights, using torture and repression of demonstrations to an extent that makes the Brown Government look almost clean by comparison. Iran backs one of the actors in the festering Israel/Palestine conflict, just as Brown backs the other. Like our Government, it seeks to generate its electricity by the absurdly expensive means of nuclear power. And like our Government, it clings to the childish belief that nuclear weapons confer some kind of magical "national security" based on total global insecurity.

For Brown to call for tighter sanctions on Iran is like the pot calling for the kettle to be sand blasted. Yet although there are similarities, we must agree that AhmadiNajad is more oppressive and unpleasant than Brown. Iran has the Basij, we have the TSG. The world would be a better place if AhmadiNajad were to be brought down, and his nuclear programme scrapped. Which is not to say that the world would not also be better if Brown were to be sent off to write his memoirs and our own nuclear weapons and power plans were to be scrapped.
The differences between the UK and Iran are of degree, not kind.

Hilary Clinton is saying that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship. Whether she is right or wrong in any absolute sense will only emerge in the future. The importance is that the US sees the situation as increasingly critical.

The Israelis have a plan, involving explosives dropped from height onto Iran's nuclear emplacements. This would be like offering to solve a problem of a leaking petrol tank with a match.

There are some sanctions in place against Iran, affecting the nuclear industry, aircraft parts, frozen assets, and petroleum technology. They are not particularly smart sanctions, not targeted on the regime, and only the nuclear sanctions are supported at UNSC level.

One useful tactic would be to entrust the Cyrus the Great "human rights" cylinder to Mr Moussavi, the opposition leader, to symbolise his status as the moral descendant of the great Persian king.

However, in view of the increasing tensions and the danger of the most stupid outcome of all, military action, there is a case for cranking up sanctions, namely, by closing off their petroleum imports.

Iran, despite being a crude oil exporter, is a net importer of refined petroleum products, meeting 1/3rd of its needs through imports. A swift ban on refined oil exports to Iran would put the regime in real half-nelson. The main drawback would be that it would adversely affect the people in many ways, although it would on the other hand have the benefit of reducing their unhealthy air pollution and traffic congestion.The Iranian Revolutionary Guard benefits from the petroleum trade.

The ban should be made subject to an easily attained objective, putting the responsibility for the discomfort caused by the sanctions onto the Iranian regime. Rather than making it contingent on cessation of Iran's nuclear programme, the petroleum import ban would be lifted in principle as soon as AhmadiNajad set a date for a re-run of the election, and implemented as soon as the election had been declared fair by international observers.

This increases the leverage of the ban greatly. Making it dependent on nuclear cessation would mean a long ban, with all the problems of alternative sourcing. Making it dependent on calling an election puts a heavy pressure on the regime, who are already under pressure from within for the same thing. Iranian unions are now joining the call for a fair election. Which may get the Left to stop sitting on its hands over this issue.

A sanctions plan of this size clearly has a multitude of aspects that need to be considered, but one of the central attractions of petroleum sanctions is that Trafigura would be against it. Trafigura is one of the five companies that supply Iran's petroleum, and there would be no tears shed at the disbenefits to Trafigura's profits resulting from sanctions.

5 comments:

I really don't understand the basis of why sanctions are needed?. Is it because they could be looking to get nuclear weapons?

Well I would ask, why should one set of countries be able to have them and not others?

You think with their records that any of the current nuclear powers have shown themselves to be paragons of ethical behaviour; worthy of the responsibility that comes with these weapons.

IMO any support for sanctions by the Green Party on Iran would be aiding and abetting biased and unethical foreign policy of those who themselves have done enough to warrant international condemnation.

The starting point is that sanctions are preferable to bombing or invasion.

The primary aim of the US and its allies is to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Progressives should agree with that aim as part of global nuclear disarmament. This view is implicit in the line "like our Government, [Iran] clings to the childish belief that nuclear weapons confer some kind of magical "national security" based on total global insecurity...For Brown to call for tighter sanctions on Iran is like the pot calling for the kettle to be sand blasted. "

I was also careful to balance the errors of Iran with those of own Govt.

My argument is to make the restoration of human rights and democracy the aim of sanctions, hopefully as a step to being able to negotiate with a more reasonable Iranian Govt.

It is all too easy to think in broad categories, as, "My enemy's enemy is my friend"; "Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, AhmadiNajad hates Israel, therefore AhmadiNajad is OK".

Politics is a lot more complicated than that; we have to take a systems approach, including as many factors as our minds can manage.

I agree progressives should be looking at gobal nuclear disarmament but to single out sanctions against one party when their is IMO disingenuous esp when Israel is involved in the politics.

"My argument is to make the restoration of human rights and democracy the aim of sanctions, hopefully as a step to being able to negotiate with a more reasonable Iranian Govt."

Again why single out Iran? Yes there is much to dislike about the regime but the same can be said of many others.Ok realpolitik is a factor but considering the hypocrisy of the big players against Iran; again I say it would be giving policy support to those that don't deserve it.

Also it comes to mind one of the justificatons of regime change and invasion of Iraq, when many asked why the US didn't do the same with other odious countries?

BTW I'm more than aware of and don't take the stance that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'm would just want ethical and policy consistency and you don't get that by pushing for sanctions against Iran. It just smacks of bias and siding with do what I say not what I do politcs.